Tchebyshev inequality for Measure theory.












0












$begingroup$


Suppose $f$ integrable on measurable set $E$ and $f(x)$ $geq$ $0$ on $E$,



And for any $a in mathbb{R}^+$, we define:



$E_a$ = ${x in E$ $vert$ $f(x) > a}$. (which is measurable by basic principles)



Show that $m(E_a) leq frac{1}{a} int_E f(x)$. ($m$ is Leb Meas)



here is what I have:



Pf:



Since



$a$ $chi_{E_a}$ $leq f(x)$ ($because$ of the fact: $x in E_a$)



by integrating both sides over $E$ we obtain



$a int_E chi_{E_a}$ $leq$ $int_E f(x)$



and by definition, we rewrite the LHS and have:



$m(E_a) leq frac{1}{a} int_E f(x)$



does this work?



a classmate said I have to consider an infinite case too? but then



$int_{E_a} a chi_{E_a cap [-n,n]}$ goes off to infinity?



not sure I get this part, is my part correct? thanks in advance!






real-analysis measure-theory lebesgue-integral lebesgue-measure







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    Suppose $f$ integrable on measurable set $E$ and $f(x)$ $geq$ $0$ on $E$,



    And for any $a in mathbb{R}^+$, we define:



    $E_a$ = ${x in E$ $vert$ $f(x) > a}$. (which is measurable by basic principles)



    Show that $m(E_a) leq frac{1}{a} int_E f(x)$. ($m$ is Leb Meas)



    here is what I have:



    Pf:



    Since



    $a$ $chi_{E_a}$ $leq f(x)$ ($because$ of the fact: $x in E_a$)



    by integrating both sides over $E$ we obtain



    $a int_E chi_{E_a}$ $leq$ $int_E f(x)$



    and by definition, we rewrite the LHS and have:



    $m(E_a) leq frac{1}{a} int_E f(x)$



    does this work?



    a classmate said I have to consider an infinite case too? but then



    $int_{E_a} a chi_{E_a cap [-n,n]}$ goes off to infinity?



    not sure I get this part, is my part correct? thanks in advance!






    real-analysis measure-theory lebesgue-integral lebesgue-measure







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      Suppose $f$ integrable on measurable set $E$ and $f(x)$ $geq$ $0$ on $E$,



      And for any $a in mathbb{R}^+$, we define:



      $E_a$ = ${x in E$ $vert$ $f(x) > a}$. (which is measurable by basic principles)



      Show that $m(E_a) leq frac{1}{a} int_E f(x)$. ($m$ is Leb Meas)



      here is what I have:



      Pf:



      Since



      $a$ $chi_{E_a}$ $leq f(x)$ ($because$ of the fact: $x in E_a$)



      by integrating both sides over $E$ we obtain



      $a int_E chi_{E_a}$ $leq$ $int_E f(x)$



      and by definition, we rewrite the LHS and have:



      $m(E_a) leq frac{1}{a} int_E f(x)$



      does this work?



      a classmate said I have to consider an infinite case too? but then



      $int_{E_a} a chi_{E_a cap [-n,n]}$ goes off to infinity?



      not sure I get this part, is my part correct? thanks in advance!






      real-analysis measure-theory lebesgue-integral lebesgue-measure







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Suppose $f$ integrable on measurable set $E$ and $f(x)$ $geq$ $0$ on $E$,



      And for any $a in mathbb{R}^+$, we define:



      $E_a$ = ${x in E$ $vert$ $f(x) > a}$. (which is measurable by basic principles)



      Show that $m(E_a) leq frac{1}{a} int_E f(x)$. ($m$ is Leb Meas)



      here is what I have:



      Pf:



      Since



      $a$ $chi_{E_a}$ $leq f(x)$ ($because$ of the fact: $x in E_a$)



      by integrating both sides over $E$ we obtain



      $a int_E chi_{E_a}$ $leq$ $int_E f(x)$



      and by definition, we rewrite the LHS and have:



      $m(E_a) leq frac{1}{a} int_E f(x)$



      does this work?



      a classmate said I have to consider an infinite case too? but then



      $int_{E_a} a chi_{E_a cap [-n,n]}$ goes off to infinity?



      not sure I get this part, is my part correct? thanks in advance!






      real-analysis measure-theory lebesgue-integral lebesgue-measure




      real-analysis measure-theory lebesgue-integral lebesgue-measure






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 10 '18 at 23:23







      Hossien Sahebjame

















      asked Dec 10 '18 at 22:34









      Hossien SahebjameHossien Sahebjame

      888




      888






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          everything looks fine, you do not have to consider the infinite case since if the integral of f is not finite, then you have the claim trivially. If the integral of the indicator of function over the set you are given is infinte, then by monotonicity of the integral also the integral of f is infinite and again it holds :D






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            awesome thanks so much!! I see so the infinite case is the trivial case of the inequality? so for my finite case I had, that looks correct? I just need to include the infinite and say why it trivially holds, thanks@
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:11










          • $begingroup$
            but I see what you mean, so this proof would suffice for the measure theoretic Tchebyshev inequality?
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:12










          • $begingroup$
            I think so, anyway look at Markov inequality which is a general version of the tchebichev :D
            $endgroup$
            – anonymous
            Dec 12 '18 at 10:22










          • $begingroup$
            awesome thanks!
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 12 '18 at 15:59











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3034587%2ftchebyshev-inequality-for-measure-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          everything looks fine, you do not have to consider the infinite case since if the integral of f is not finite, then you have the claim trivially. If the integral of the indicator of function over the set you are given is infinte, then by monotonicity of the integral also the integral of f is infinite and again it holds :D






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            awesome thanks so much!! I see so the infinite case is the trivial case of the inequality? so for my finite case I had, that looks correct? I just need to include the infinite and say why it trivially holds, thanks@
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:11










          • $begingroup$
            but I see what you mean, so this proof would suffice for the measure theoretic Tchebyshev inequality?
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:12










          • $begingroup$
            I think so, anyway look at Markov inequality which is a general version of the tchebichev :D
            $endgroup$
            – anonymous
            Dec 12 '18 at 10:22










          • $begingroup$
            awesome thanks!
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 12 '18 at 15:59
















          1












          $begingroup$

          everything looks fine, you do not have to consider the infinite case since if the integral of f is not finite, then you have the claim trivially. If the integral of the indicator of function over the set you are given is infinte, then by monotonicity of the integral also the integral of f is infinite and again it holds :D






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            awesome thanks so much!! I see so the infinite case is the trivial case of the inequality? so for my finite case I had, that looks correct? I just need to include the infinite and say why it trivially holds, thanks@
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:11










          • $begingroup$
            but I see what you mean, so this proof would suffice for the measure theoretic Tchebyshev inequality?
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:12










          • $begingroup$
            I think so, anyway look at Markov inequality which is a general version of the tchebichev :D
            $endgroup$
            – anonymous
            Dec 12 '18 at 10:22










          • $begingroup$
            awesome thanks!
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 12 '18 at 15:59














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          everything looks fine, you do not have to consider the infinite case since if the integral of f is not finite, then you have the claim trivially. If the integral of the indicator of function over the set you are given is infinte, then by monotonicity of the integral also the integral of f is infinite and again it holds :D






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          everything looks fine, you do not have to consider the infinite case since if the integral of f is not finite, then you have the claim trivially. If the integral of the indicator of function over the set you are given is infinte, then by monotonicity of the integral also the integral of f is infinite and again it holds :D







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 10 '18 at 22:57









          anonymousanonymous

          361




          361












          • $begingroup$
            awesome thanks so much!! I see so the infinite case is the trivial case of the inequality? so for my finite case I had, that looks correct? I just need to include the infinite and say why it trivially holds, thanks@
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:11










          • $begingroup$
            but I see what you mean, so this proof would suffice for the measure theoretic Tchebyshev inequality?
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:12










          • $begingroup$
            I think so, anyway look at Markov inequality which is a general version of the tchebichev :D
            $endgroup$
            – anonymous
            Dec 12 '18 at 10:22










          • $begingroup$
            awesome thanks!
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 12 '18 at 15:59


















          • $begingroup$
            awesome thanks so much!! I see so the infinite case is the trivial case of the inequality? so for my finite case I had, that looks correct? I just need to include the infinite and say why it trivially holds, thanks@
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:11










          • $begingroup$
            but I see what you mean, so this proof would suffice for the measure theoretic Tchebyshev inequality?
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 10 '18 at 23:12










          • $begingroup$
            I think so, anyway look at Markov inequality which is a general version of the tchebichev :D
            $endgroup$
            – anonymous
            Dec 12 '18 at 10:22










          • $begingroup$
            awesome thanks!
            $endgroup$
            – Hossien Sahebjame
            Dec 12 '18 at 15:59
















          $begingroup$
          awesome thanks so much!! I see so the infinite case is the trivial case of the inequality? so for my finite case I had, that looks correct? I just need to include the infinite and say why it trivially holds, thanks@
          $endgroup$
          – Hossien Sahebjame
          Dec 10 '18 at 23:11




          $begingroup$
          awesome thanks so much!! I see so the infinite case is the trivial case of the inequality? so for my finite case I had, that looks correct? I just need to include the infinite and say why it trivially holds, thanks@
          $endgroup$
          – Hossien Sahebjame
          Dec 10 '18 at 23:11












          $begingroup$
          but I see what you mean, so this proof would suffice for the measure theoretic Tchebyshev inequality?
          $endgroup$
          – Hossien Sahebjame
          Dec 10 '18 at 23:12




          $begingroup$
          but I see what you mean, so this proof would suffice for the measure theoretic Tchebyshev inequality?
          $endgroup$
          – Hossien Sahebjame
          Dec 10 '18 at 23:12












          $begingroup$
          I think so, anyway look at Markov inequality which is a general version of the tchebichev :D
          $endgroup$
          – anonymous
          Dec 12 '18 at 10:22




          $begingroup$
          I think so, anyway look at Markov inequality which is a general version of the tchebichev :D
          $endgroup$
          – anonymous
          Dec 12 '18 at 10:22












          $begingroup$
          awesome thanks!
          $endgroup$
          – Hossien Sahebjame
          Dec 12 '18 at 15:59




          $begingroup$
          awesome thanks!
          $endgroup$
          – Hossien Sahebjame
          Dec 12 '18 at 15:59


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3034587%2ftchebyshev-inequality-for-measure-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Quarter-circle Tiles

          Image
          up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2
          Read more

          build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

          Image
          0 I think it's similiar to NFAs. I replace the finite states of the given automaton for start-states for my new automaton. I do it with $epsilon$ -transition from the start state to the actual finite states of the given automaton. The start state of the given automaton will be my accepting(finite) state of my new one. All transitions will be reversed of course to recognize the reversed word. But how do I have to change the stack of the pushdown automaton? That's tricky. formal-languages automata context-free-grammar share | cite | improve this question edited Nov 29 '18 at 14:20 joee
          Read more

          Mont Emei

          Image
          Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog
          Read more